Popping The Big Bang

(Jim Greenfield) wrote in sci.astro:


While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position,
as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I
will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my
understanding of basic logical arguement)



Kung Fu, and with it related martial arts from the Far East, are
defensive, and not offensive. That means they center around humble and
non-provoking behaviour, giving no rise to attacks in the first place.


--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
Gentlemen,
While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position,
as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I
will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my
understanding of basic logical arguement)

Sure, but when you say the BB is wrong because
you think the universe is infinite, and then
people point out that the BB says the universe
is probably infinite, perhaps you should stop
and think. Maybe you just found out you are on
the same side of the street as the rest of us.

George

George,
While I appreciate the intellectual push-ups reading many posts to
this ng force me to do, at this stage I'm not even in the same town.
The diagrams which my daughter is forced at year 12 level to accept
as 'gospel', portray an explosion at a point 13.7 billion years ago,
and an expansion involving various stages of heat, subatomic plasma,
becoming matter as we know it, and moving out from that point since,
forming galaxies etc. Distances are given as standards (not changing
speed of light x time), and no provisos are made that time was
different back when... Size of universe is given to be 13.7bly and age
13.7by.
This scenario I find contradictory, and surely excludes 1/0 in time
or distance. Now I have been ridiculed for even imagining that the BB
was a singularity event, but who is going to appologise to these kids
who are being forced to swallow and memorise stuff which is being
denied here? They are in a closed loop, having to pull the forelock to
the "The Theory" in order to gain entry to establishments of "higher
learning". Sure they need basic knowledge of mathematical skills and
scientific background of research and historical approaches, but there
shoul be way more emphasis on letting them know that they have a right
to question and logically apply thought to study, and reserve the
right to bin that which contains internal contradiction.
If BB is now proclaimed to have occurred 'every where at once', I
consider that a back-pedal of the first order, with no relationship to
the above. Apart from which 'expansion of space' (nothing) is an
oxymoron, and if all the material of the universe was already 'out
there' in an invisible form, and suddenly 'Banged ' into 'existence'
to begin expanding in all directions is stretching imagination into
cookoo land

CeeBee wrote in message . 6.83...
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in sci.astro:


While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position,
as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I
will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my
understanding of basic logical arguement)



Kung Fu, and with it related martial arts from the Far East, are
defensive, and not offensive. That means they center around humble and
non-provoking behaviour, giving no rise to attacks in the first place.

For 'Kung Fu' write 'Samurai'

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

In sci.astro \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote:

You are aware that conventional wisdom has the set of dimensions known as
space alter very slightly with time? So that "where does the energy go" is
not a problem. And it agrees with local experiment.
David A. Smith

Um, No, I'm not aware of that. What do you mean "alter with time"?
You mean like space is "expanding" because of the BB? Of course,
my proposal implies that space is not expanding.

bjacoby
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

In article ,
Jim Greenfield wrote:
CeeBee wrote in message
.6.83...
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in sci.astro:


While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position,
as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I
will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my
understanding of basic logical arguement)



Kung Fu, and with it related martial arts from the Far East, are
defensive, and not offensive. That means they center around humble and
non-provoking behaviour, giving no rise to attacks in the first place.

For 'Kung Fu' write 'Samurai'

Let's maybe ask the Okinawans about it before we make that substitution.


--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
Gentlemen,
While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position,
as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I
will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my
understanding of basic logical arguement)

Sure, but when you say the BB is wrong because
you think the universe is infinite, and then
people point out that the BB says the universe
is probably infinite, perhaps you should stop
and think. Maybe you just found out you are on
the same side of the street as the rest of us.

George

George,
While I appreciate the intellectual push-ups reading many posts to
this ng force me to do, at this stage I'm not even in the same town.

I'm only on the suburbs myself. Be critical but
even-handed and you can soon sort the wheat from
the chaff.

The diagrams which my daughter is forced at year 12 level to accept
as 'gospel',

Science should _never_ be taught that way. If that
is the case then she has a poor teacher. Science is
always only our best interpretation of the evidence
at any time and the whole aim is to move it forward
all the time. Our ideas on cosmology in particular
have changed dramatically in the few years I have
been in this group.

portray an explosion at a point 13.7 billion years ago,
and an expansion involving various stages of heat, subatomic plasma,
becoming matter as we know it, and moving out from that point since,
forming galaxies etc.

The "moving out from a point" bit is ********, to
put it mildly. If she is being taught that then
you need to have a word with the teacher. Send the
teacher here to get straightened out if you like!
It is one of the biggest myths around about the
Big Bang theory and probably causes more problems
than all the rest put together.

Distances are given as standards (not changing
speed of light x time), and no provisos are made that time was
different back when...

Distance is a very difficult aspect to convey (I
have trouble getting my head rund it too). The
maths of GR defines it clearly but that maths is
far beyond my level. The best way to learn about
it is to look at Ned Wright's tutorial. It is not
easy but is certainly better than anything you
will see here. This is the start (you may have
looked already at some of it):

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

As for your comments "changing speed of light x
time" and "time was different back when...", I have
no idea what you mean by those. Can you clarify at
all?


Size of universe is given to be 13.7bly and age
13.7by.

The age is our current best value so no problem
there. The "size" on the other hand is entirely
misleading but you will even see it in official
press releases. The "distance" quoted for new
objects is usually given simply as the time since
the light we see was emitted multiplied by the
speed of light. Even a few moments thought shows
that raises contradictions but if you work through
Ned's tutorial you should be able to understand
the real situation. The press always likes things
simple but dramatic.

This scenario I find contradictory, and surely excludes 1/0 in time
or distance. Now I have been ridiculed for even imagining that the BB
was a singularity event, but who is going to appologise to these kids
who are being forced to swallow and memorise stuff which is being
denied here?

If that is what they are being told, you should
again have a talk with the teacher, BB theory does
not go back to the initial instant and never has.
We have GR that deals incredibly well with gravity,
mainly at large scales, and we have QM that deals
equally well for particle interactions at very
small scales, but the two are incompatible. One of
the main quests of science today is looking for a
way to resolve that conflict.

At the very earliest times, neither gravity nor
quantum effects can be ignored so we are stumped
hence present theory goes only so far back.
"Singularities" are dramatic items for popular books
but they are extrapolations taken too far at the
moment.

They are in a closed loop, having to pull the forelock to
the "The Theory" in order to gain entry to establishments of "higher
learning". Sure they need basic knowledge of mathematical skills and
scientific background of research and historical approaches, but there
shoul be way more emphasis on letting them know that they have a right
to question and logically apply thought to study, and reserve the
right to bin that which contains internal contradiction.

If they want to get into further education, they
will need to show critical thinking abilities and
forelock-tuggers don't always make the grade.
Contradictions will appear if you base your ideas
on some lighter presentations but if you enquire
you will usually find it is usually a superficial
explanation of a complex subject.

If BB is now proclaimed to have occurred 'every where at once', I
consider that a back-pedal of the first order, with no relationship to
the above.

That is what the BB has always said, it isn't a
change. Whatever gave you the idea it started with
a singularity was pushing the theory too far.

Apart from which 'expansion of space' (nothing) is an
oxymoron,

Some will say it is a term that refers to the speed
that material got when the original gas expanded.
Others say space is expanding. The truth is that
they are trying to explain a 4-dimensional dynamic
picture with only 3-dimensional language to convey
the concepts. Again, Ned Wright's tutorial is a
better place to start, and people here will be
willing to help (if you don't start by telling them
it's wrong before you know what it says). It's not
easy but if you want your daughter to get the real
story, it's worth finding out.

and if all the material of the universe was already 'out
there' in an invisible form, and suddenly 'Banged ' into 'existence'
to begin expanding in all directions is stretching imagination into
cookoo land

Our ideas on the creation of matter are taken from
what is observed in high energy labs around the world
("atom-smashers" as the press used to call them). We
see matter being created out of energy every day.
Putting that into the context of the early universe
is not trivial but it can be done, at least for the
later stages, by computer simulation.

George

Dear bjacoby:
wrote in message
...
In sci.astro \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote:

You are aware that conventional wisdom has the set of dimensions known
as
space alter very slightly with time? So that "where does the energy
go" is
not a problem. And it agrees with local experiment.
David A. Smith

Um, No, I'm not aware of that. What do you mean "alter with time"?
You mean like space is "expanding" because of the BB? Of course,
my proposal implies that space is not expanding.

Space is expanding, meaning that the volume denominator in mass/energy
density is increasing without bound (apparenlty). This means the "time
base" is getting shorter, which would make the past appear slower... more
red. It is not a direct consequence of the BB though...

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...
Dear Jim Greenfield:

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
...
The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if
this
could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red
shift"
that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not*
truly
velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based.
The
past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So,
just as
light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the
same
reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as
compared to
*now*.

Your paragraph above smacks of an idea that I have carried for some
time ref gravitational red shift.
As you point out, light from the sun is red shifted more than the same
emmitted frequency on earth, and this effect may have severely screwed
astronomical observations (calculations) thus- A heavy (high gravity)
star at say 500ly distant may APPEAR to be further away than a less
massive one at 600ly (forget the figures) because its light emmission
was slowed more at source, and therefore took longer to get here. What
do you think? Of course this indicates an Actual reduction of the
velocity of the photon through a vacuum, which may not sit too well
with R.

A lot of what we assume about the Universe is based on local observation.

The inference is that there is no evidence that physical properties have
changed significantly (say more than 3% in 13 Gy), so what we see here,
should be similar to what we see there/then.

"Large" stars have some characteristics, and extreme red shift is not one
of those. There are red giants, but the spectra indicate they are just not
hot on the surface. Extremely massive stars, don't have a spectrum, since
they are largely dark, and we only see evidence of these if they have a
companion.

But isn't this evidence (last sentence) in contradiction of the
preceding?
If those massive stars were bigger still, they might BE a 'black hole'

As distances get great, we no longer resolve stars, but general galactic
shapes. Further still, and even the galaxies are glorified "points".

The CMBR is a body such as you describe, but it is not dense, nor
particularly massive (well...). But it *is* deeply red shifted.
Presumably because the Universe in which it was immersed was very dense.
That means our clocks in the here-and-now run faster than the clocks
there-and-then.

The velocity of light is very much a function of the local "time base".
However rather than go off on my favorite rant, I will submit that
supernovae (especially type I) occur with a particular duration from
maximum to a certain percentage of maximum intensity with time. This
duration is proportional to the red shift of the received light between 3
and 5 Gy (to within 3%). So events then, even nuclear transitions, were
more or less evenly slowed.

David A. Smith

.....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'
(sorry for the delay- I just re-read your post)

Jim G

Dear Jim Greenfield:

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...
....
A lot of what we assume about the Universe is based on local
observation.

The inference is that there is no evidence that physical properties
have
changed significantly (say more than 3% in 13 Gy), so what we see here,
should be similar to what we see there/then.

"Large" stars have some characteristics, and extreme red shift is not
one
of those. There are red giants, but the spectra indicate they are just
not
hot on the surface. Extremely massive stars, don't have a spectrum,
since
they are largely dark, and we only see evidence of these if they have a
companion.

But isn't this evidence (last sentence) in contradiction of the
preceding?
If those massive stars were bigger still, they might BE a 'black hole'

In some cases, yes. In others, they are just dark companions. The energy
of the collision particles tells a good story. But the spectra are still
discernable. That is the cool thing about real matter, it has a signature.

....
As distances get great, we no longer resolve stars, but general
galactic
shapes. Further still, and even the galaxies are glorified "points".

The CMBR is a body such as you describe, but it is not dense, nor
particularly massive (well...). But it *is* deeply red shifted.
Presumably because the Universe in which it was immersed was very
dense.
That means our clocks in the here-and-now run faster than the clocks
there-and-then.

The velocity of light is very much a function of the local "time base".
However rather than go off on my favorite rant, I will submit that
supernovae (especially type I) occur with a particular duration from
maximum to a certain percentage of maximum intensity with time. This
duration is proportional to the red shift of the received light between
3
and 5 Gy (to within 3%). So events then, even nuclear transitions,
were
more or less evenly slowed.

....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'
(sorry for the delay- I just re-read your post)

You need to consider what you mean by "inaccurate".

Time, distance, and mass are all relative measurements, relative to
standards. The science of metrology establishes accuracy, and atomic
clocks, no matter where located, are unsurprising (to most people) in their
excellent accuracy. Yes clocks at different levels in a gravity field do
run at different rates, when compared one to another. But so far, they
seem to all agree with the predictions of GR.

In other words, by knowing which clock is providing your time, and where it
is, you can infer (via a calculator) what a similar clock in your frame
would read. For the price of a really good calculator, you can have your
own atomic clock, in some sense.

David A. Smith

In sci.astro Jim Greenfield wrote:

I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.

Perhaps not "automatically", but doesn't the fact that everything
seems to be flying apart sort of imply that once everything
was together and then exploded (big bang) and now is "coasting"?
This is sort of my idea of what the "big Bang" is supposed to
about.

Benj
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!